Should the current F1 regulations be changed?

Formula One is in another state of uproar, much of which is to do with new regulations agreed for 2014.

The FIA and the teams together with their engineers had agreed in 2009/10 that Formula One was too aerodynamically dependent and sought to redress the balance by improving the influence on traditional automotive engineering.

To an extent, Christian Horner revealed the success of this planned transition when he stated in Melbourne.“Sauber, Ferrari’s engine customer, is a perfect example of what is wrong with the current rules.

All week, the Swiss team has clung to survival in a Melbourne courtroom, but on track in Melbourne, it was an F1 giant-killer.

The Sauber of Felipe Nasr finished ahead of the only Red Bull to make it to the chequered flag.

“They’re using last year’s wings,” mocked Horner. “Our new chassis is half a second better than the last year”.

The Red Bull team principal concluded, “The difference is the engine.”

Apart from Red Bull, it appears few others are complaining about the current Mercedes works team dominance. Of course it would be ideal for the fans were Formula One race wins being contested by more than one team. However, would it be right for the FIA to change the regulations with the intention of reducing Mercedes advantage?

We’ve heard a lot from the various F1 circus protagonists on this matter. Now it’s time of the voice of the fans.

68 responses to “Should the current F1 regulations be changed?”

Emphatically no! They(all the teams and manufacturers) agreed upon these regs 3 years ago. And it sunk 3 teams(who were promised effective cost reduced sport) in that time. Neither RedBull/Renault or Ferrari expected the works Mercedes team would be the one to make the biggest competitive leap. Spice Boy needs to suck it up. And he put down Sauber for outscoring his team!

Redbull could always approach Merc or Ferrari for a customer engine, if they are so confident thats all it is. The realitiy is Redbull bent and broke the rules to get an advantage, Merc on the other hand haven’t, which in probably means they will be caught in the long run, Ferrari seemed to of made up the gap on the engine front. There have always been weak and strong engines in formula one.

I think Redbulls other gripe is they’ve been used to thier spending firepower to develop the best chasis before, this has been cancelled out by the engine, so the problem is renault not Formula 1.

The rules are just fine as they are, more pressing concerns are we could lose a substantial amount of the grid before the seasons end.

NB Redbull are just bad losers, troubles is they’re not very good winners either.

I voted yes, and the only reason, is because I’m selfish and want a competitive F1.

Despite being a Hamilton fan, I don’t want to suffer another 4 years with one team, or even worse, one driver, running away with it.
And I’m fully aware of the arguments against it. Why should Merc be penalised for doing the best job by far, for investing heavily? And did it harm Schuey’s and Ferrari’s reputation in the early 2000s? NO! Did it harm RBR’s and Vettel’s reputation in the early 2010s? NO! And it won’t harm Merc and Hamilton (and/or Rosberg). But it does harm F1.

Maybe this Merc dominance is too soon. During the McLaren-Honda years you had two behemoths fighting each other. In the Williams dominance years, you had 4-5 different champions. After the Ferrari years you had the Hamilton/Alonso and McLaren/Ferrari (Hamitlon/Massa) duels. Right now, there’s no breathing space. We move from one runaway team/driver to another.

And so going back to my first sentence. I’m selfish. Don’t want to switch off completely and so change the rules, or something else, whatever. Just make it more competitive. And even if Rosberg pushes Hamilton again this year, he doesn’t appeal to me for some reason. I want a duel between the three most marketable champions out there (Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel).

the rate at which the hippocratic BS falls out of Horners’ and Markos’ gobs is astonishing

“F1 is too expensive” – solution? Lets rewrite the rules and spend a load more money
“F1 cant sustain a period of single team dominance” – solution? Lets rewrite the rules to allow us to once dominate again
“We are ‘aero experts’ whose spend on aero developments isnt letting us win anymore – so lets ban wind tunnels

…except that when RBR was leading, there was no lock on car development to achieve the same kind of results. For example, you could easily re-work your diffusers or aero bits – the FIA wasn’t limiting how much you could change on your car.

Bah – english fans are all the same. They loved it when the rules were changed to eliminate RBR’s advantages over the last 5 years, but now that Ham is winning, they don’t want anything to change.

Yes, Merc built the best engine. Good for them. Maybe they’ll win a few more empty, boring championships. But I’ll respect the RBR dominance more because at least the other teams were allowed to compete.

When the rules were changed, they also affected everyone and it still didn’t stop them from dominating. Furthermore those solutions were banned because the right on the boundary of legality. Let’s not forget that they were caught cheating last year at Abu Dhabi.

You’re talking as if it was only Redbulls ideas were banned, Mclaren F-Duct, Mercedes FRIC suspension etc.

I voted NO. The rules were agreed by all engine manufacturers and constructors 4 or 5 years before implementation. Merc just did a better job. Changing the rules now will not guarantee parity, it just might exacerbate the situation.

I haven’t voted yet (kinda on the fence), but I’d say a (very qualified) “Yes”:
FIA should find the regulatory teeth (i.e. Little Jean to find the potence) to regulate the distribution of income and make sure that there is never, say, more than a 2x differential between highest/worst paid teams.

THAT would help improve the show, or at least give teams a more equal footing, whether Merc is dominating or not. Maybe a small team with a decent budget can wriggle something to upset the giant… Equality of opportunity springs to mind.

Didn’t hesitate, voted yes, just because the rules were agreed on doesn’t mean they don’t need updating in light of reality.

To achieve that however, the rules change must be equitable so my proposal is simple, that engine tokens be allotted according to finish, with the highest( ie best) manufacturer effectively being frozen and the worst being given the most tokens (leeway) to develop. Since it could change from year to year, it is equitable to all engine manufacturers. I would also recommend opening the engine entirely to the worst performer (some bits are already frozen) and in similar fashion as the job was done better, fewer areas allowed for development.I could also suggest allowing further ERS development as well as giving more room to ES and MGU-K for those manufacturers at the back of the heap.

It is important to note that this is just an adjustment to what’s already agreed on, rather than tossing out the baby with the bathwater scenario proposed by Horner. I wish to make it clear that I do not think the engines themselves should be done away with. Rather, it seems to me that the token and development system needs to be rethought in light of the reality of Mercedes remarkable job.

As far as aero goes, bit of a push because if you take too much away, then the cars go slower than WEC cars, but I would suggest brake ducts as being a good area for careful rethinking of regs. They’re incredibly expensive and complex, so that always bears looking at.

The FIA have a historical record of regulating to keep the balance amongst the teams, so there is nothing untoward in them doing so. The difference this time around is that unlike, say, double diffusers, there doesn’t seem to be a trick solution Mercedes have, rather a gradual accretion of simply having done everything better. This makes it infinitely harder for them to take away their advantage, as it seems to be rooted in lots of little things rather than one big thing.

“The FIA have a historical record of regulating to keep the balance amongst the teams, so there is nothing untoward in them doing so.”

Indeed, and this is the argument that is slowly swaying me into the “Yes” camp. It seems to me that in periods of domination or specifically creative and efficient solutions, teams were allowed most of the times to keep their toys for 2-3 years before being taken away. For instance, McLaren’s F-duct: it was allowed till end of season, and taken afterwards. So yeah, I can see the reasoning for rationing Merc’s stratospheric advantage…

I’ll reply because I think your proposed solution(s) are elegant, and lovely. OK, except for two fatal flaws. 🙂

First, as I mentioned in a comment yesterday, the primary problem with any solution is that the advantage of the W06 chassis is unknown.

As we saw in Melbourne, the Mercedes PU106B engine is not the source of the strong advantage that lies in the W06 chassis, given how Mercedes powered teams were found at the back of the field (Perez dog-fighting with the McHonda and repeatably losing was entertaining to say the least), as well as various parts of the middle of the field with Lotus and Williams.

Furthermore, the Ferrari 059/3 engine is reputed to be close in power to the Mercedes PU106B. We saw good evidence of it with the impoverished little Sauber coming out of the box and beating Red Bull in a race long dog-fight for 5th place. Meanwhile the Ferrari SF15-T had little problem getting around Williams to get on to the podium. So the PU106B engine doesn’t hold a large advantage.

The big advantage lies within the W06 chassis / package itself.

Second, and perhaps more important, your proposal, while elegant, is also a very radical change for the FIA.

While you’re correct to note that the FIA has adjusted the rules in the past, the primary reasons the FIA has taken action previously was usually because some team found a loop-hole in the rules that gave them a strong advantage which would have been expensive and time-consuming for other teams to replicate. (The other primary reason being safety.)

In this case, we don’t know what loop-hole (if any) is being exploited by the W06 chassis, since no one seems to know what makes it perform so much better than the others.

I voted no, of course, because we don’t know the advantage of the W06. Implementing a solution when we don’t understand the problem will most likely to do more harm than good.

Haha my friend I should be working on podcast but cannot resist the lure of an excellent discussion with someone as learned as yourself.

I am more than willing to cede that the unknown in this equation is the chassis itself, nevertheless the performance difference in Sauber to me demonstrates quite clearly that the PU can make a significant difference in terms of performance, given that Sauber likely had little money and ability to significantly develop the chassis, relative to say, Red Bull or Ferrari (or even Williams) from last season to this season. So in that sense, it is relatively easy to see the value of an improved PU, regardless of the influence of chassis. W/R/T Force India pootling round the back of the field, I would simply point out that they missed the first test in its entirety and were not able to run their 2015 chassis at the 2nd test, so I would exclude them on that grounds. On the other hand, though they failed to finish the race, Lotus’ performance in Practice and Quali again point to the influence the PU can have on performance.

But I would go on to say that as long as Mercedes’ continues winning, they would continue to have their PU frozen. At a certain point, the advancement in Ferrari and Renault (and one hopes Honda) PU’s would allow them to obviate any chassis advantage that Mercedes might have. That is, unless one assumes that Mercedes PU is so developed that the best they could do is catch up. given the leftover development tokens from Mercedes for this season, I personally find this unlikely.

As to your point about the FIA regulations, the ones you remark on are all aimed at teams and one off developments, fair enough I accept your point. In return, I would point to the fact that in general Renault started the V8 era at the back and were allowed exemptions through the FIA to gradually make gains till they were level with, or, in some instances, ahead of Mercedes and Ferrari. Rather than let this process play out behind closed doors, I merely propose adjusting the development regs to make the process transparent and (with luck) a bit fairer. It may not solve all the problems, but I think it would at least make a reasonable dent in them. At the least, it would give Horner one less thing to whinge about, LOL!! That has to be worth serious consideration all on its own.

My friend, now I feed guilty from drawing you away from the good work that goes in to the fun podcast.

It’s funny to see us both using the examples of Sauber, Force India, and Lotus to bolster are arguments. Candidly, I’m not sure they help either side very much.

Let me just say two things. Your theory, let’s call it performance penalty, is that if one competitor is too far ahead, they receive a penalty to reduce their performance.

So if my supposition is correct that the advantage lies with the chassis, then using the performance penalty theory, we could just give the W06 a 10kg weight penalty. If they still win by more than a pit stop, then another 10kg, etc. I believe this system is used in WTCC, and/or other such series. (I’m not in favor of this for F1, but just want to illustrate why the theory of this solution is a radical proposal for F1.)

Regarding fewer things for Christian Horner to whine about… I’d hate to see that! It’s funny, and entertaining to see him humiliate himself. 🙂

I can see we should agree to disagree on this. But I do admire the elegance of your solution! Cheers!

Now i’m completely procrastinating and I am happy to disagree on this one, but I do have a quibble with calling it a “performance penalty” as in now way will it degrade the current performance of the car, unlike “Success Ballast” (now there’s an exercise in reframing if ever I heard one) in BTCC for example.

The only thing my solution would do is prevent Mercedes AMG from implementing further engine develpoments till at least one of its competitors had caught up. The teams would still be free to develop the rest of the car as they saw fit, and under no circumstances (to be clear to everyone else) do I think the engine formula should be changed. Just the implementation of engine development tokens.

I voted no – in line with the views of Honda, who I think are facing their current travails with some dignity – but I would not be at all averse to some tweaking of the token allocation as you suggest.
it’s a neat idea – and in any event, the allocation has already been mucked around with at the beginning of the season in a far less reasoned manner.

No problem with rules. I want to see the pinnacle of motorsports… Pinnacle of what mankind has developed. Let’s keep pushing for more power and more development. It’ll be a bloodbath of teams like red bull and one day Mercedes will be crying the same. Isn’t this a repeat of red bull 10-13, Ferrari 2000-04, Williams 90-93, McLaren 87-89. I’m sure it doesn’t sell t shirts getting 6th place but headdown and keep pushing Horner.

If it is true that the FIA ‘helped’ Mercedes by giving them extra information earlier than when they gave it to the other teams, changing the rules so as to ‘undo’ this mistake will be a remarkably courageous decision, in spite of the criticism

Bernie’s talking out his ass! Didn’t hear him say nothing about thr RedBull era. And I don’t wanna hear about, “the Redbull wasn’t as dominant as the Mercedes” fact is, they won 4 on the trot and he was happy to state Seb would win in those years.

Bernie is throwing mud at the wall and hoping for it to stick. If there was evidence of this, do you really think Christian Horner of all people would not come out and said something about It from last year?

“Ecclestone told Sky Sports24 HD that Mercedes was in close contact with FIA to define the new engines, and they knew more than the others, that’s the reason why they started so strong in 2014 and they still keep that advantage in 2015.”
Are these kind of rules all manufacturers agreed?

With as much regulation that is currently transpiring in the sport your bound to have a group of individuals interpret the rules better than others…. It’s a burden of the teams to get better. But how are they going to get better if they can’t test what they’ve designed in real time? So the rules come out, one team cracks the code of the rules and the fans are left screwed with boring races because they did a better job tweaking than everyone else. Like the red necks say over here in the US “run what cha brung”. Since teams are “manufacturers”, let them manufacture anything. V12 with crap areo, great. Turbo V6, with tons of areo, wonderful. V8, Diesel power, 4 wheels, 6 wheels whatever. I find much enjoyment going multi class races (WEC, ALMS) with the numerous variations of noises pertruding from the tail pipes. I’d love to experience the same thing in F1, because let’s be honest, it’s getting boring as hell. K, rant over, I’m good. K, thanks, bye.

If Mercedes have some “trick” parts or way of approaching their PU, then this particular trick could be outlawed…at the end of the season. This is exactly what is in the regulations and follows precedent (e.g. double diffusers, blown floor, etc.).

If Merc have some “trick” which can be shown to be against the rules, then that could be outlawed immediately through a clarification, again following precedent (e.g. bendy wings, FRIC(?) suspension, mass-damper, etc.). Note: is the new way of measuring fuel pressure one of these…??

However, if the Merc engine has no trick parts, no exotic metals or anything and is just plain better engineering, then rules should absolutely not be changed unless very (very) carefully thought out – huge cost will be a likely result (which is the LAST thing we need) and the new rules could just as easily backfire and create a worse mess.

Who’s to decide how much of an advantage is too much? 1 second? 2? Wouldn’t a competitor just sandbag? And why just engines? Red Bull consistently claim to have the best aero – maybe that should all be equalised to…?

We all want close racing, but going down a path of rushing to change rules to force equality in a single random area is desperate in the extreme (in my opinion!).

I was going to say in reply to Jamie Norman above ‘Red Bull bent and broke…..Merc haven’t’ – might be a case of haven’t been found out yet?
There was an allusion to something like this floated by yesterday, may have even been on this site?
I don’t believe it but F1 does seem to be a game of smoke and mirrors after all.

I doubt we’d have been in this mess had the FIA not slapped a development freeze on the Power Units. I think the rules need to be changed but only if the funding of F1 teams is sorted out properly. So fat chance of that happening.

I read that already Judge, but he has not given any proof of wrong doing on Mercedes’s part…

“They knew more about the proposed power unit because the Mercedes people were in close contact with the FIA in defining the concept of this engine.

“This is why they had such a strong start last year and they are keeping that advantage now.”

Is it not standard procedure for the teams to be in constant contact with the FIA when designing their cars? When they had the uproar about the double diffuser, didn’t Ross said they got clarification from the FIA that their design was legal before going ahead? So if Mercedes under Ross did the same with the engine, then they’ve not done anything wrong. They had a concept in mind and worked with the FIA to guarantee that their design was legal.

Why didn’t he come out last year with this? Was he hoping that Redbull wouldve overhaul Mercedes? I’m sorry but this is low down nasty tactic.

I keep reading this argument all over the internet but I just don’t get it. Mercedes are doing a far better job & have plenty of engine development funding so unlimited development could easily see them extend the gap.

I don’t think that limits on development is what has left Renault in the position it is – getting worse according to Horner – it’s that Mercedes & Ferrari did a way better job over the winter. I think it’s more likely that the gap would have been larger rather than smaller without it!

I think Renault’s power unit design is fundamentally flawed. As for Mercedes a lot of it’s down to Ross Brawn’s ability to organise a team and redirect things when something isn’t right. We’ve yet to see if Paddy Lowe has that skill.

I voted yes as the FIA has already done so to RBR plenty of times. They were held back nearly every year since 2009. To clarify I hate RBR with a burning passion.. Not to mention the tricks pulled by the FIA against Ferrari / MSC

Lack of testing + lack of tokens are the biggest culprits judging Renaults / RBR’s situation. They can bin the season already.

IF nothing changes Mercedes will hold on to their lead for atleast 5 years.

Yep, Alex above has nailed it for me. In F1 the top team is always reigned in on the basis of keeping the sport competitive. I see no reason why the FIA shouldn’t do the same now as what they did to Williams by removing active suspension, Ferrari by piece by piece banning their entire car and likewise Red Bull.

Is it fair? Hell no. Not at all. That’s F1 though.

Failure to keep any runaway leader in check will result in lower audiences and promoters struggling to sell tickets. F1 has to be exciting at present it’s just not. Sorry Toto… welcome to what happens to the big boys when they get too good!

I read that already Judge, but he has not given any proof of wrong doing on Mercedes’s part…

“They knew more about the proposed power unit because the Mercedes people were in close contact with the FIA in defining the concept of this engine.

“This is why they had such a strong start last year and they are keeping that advantage now.”

Is it not standard procedure for the teams to be in constant contact with the FIA when designing their cars? When they had the uproar about the double diffuser, didn’t Ross said they got clarification from the FIA that their design was legal before going ahead? So if Mercedes under Ross did the same with the engine, then they’ve not done anything wrong. They had a concept in mind and worked with the FIA to guarantee that their design was legal.

Why didn’t he come out last year with this? Was he hoping that Redbull wouldve overhaul Mercedes? I’m sorry but this is low down nasty tactic.

If as a team you have stolen the march on the competition by producing the best car, why should there be intervention to ensure other teams can catch up and be equal? Great message that sends to manufacturers who are weighing up whether to join F1 – If you produce the best car, expect to be penalised for it as you are not allowed to be the best! All efforts gone to waste all because other teams are seemingly incapable of catching up under normal circumstances. Merc did the best job when V8’s came out at the beginning only to be told that Renault did a crap job (sound familiar?) and will be given time to catch up.

This is a typical knee jerk reaction from the FIA. Ferrari have improved quite significantly from last year, and their engine even seems to now be about on par with Merc – see top speeds. They’ve got work to do to still catch up, yes, but teams will eventually get there if we are to believe in the law of diminishing returns. McLaren aren’t competitive now, but their aero has improved tenfold compared to last year’s car. The engine is letting them down, but once sorted they’ll probably be snapping on Mercedes’ heels come the end of the season.

I can’t help but think that the 4 years of domination by Vettel and RedBull has exacerbated this whole issue. If we hadn’t seen that, then people would have probably been a bit more patient for things to turn around in this era of V6’s. It’s not as if Rosberg is consistently 20 seconds down from Lewis in the races, he’s there pushing him (for now anyway).

What needs sorting out is this ridiculous financial situation in which teams are being pushed out in. Sort that out and bring more blo0dy teams into F1 so a repeat of the race in melbourne doesn’t happen where only 11 cars finish. Oh, and make F1 free to watch for all on any device people wish – I’m willing to bet that it’d bring in more revenue than F1 in it’s current format. For a sport wishing to attract a larger audience, it’s a travesty that this isn’t the case which is due to the old hag Bernie and his cronies running it who have had their day and need to let someone who actually knows what they’re doing run the sport – ie me!

You are forgetting though that “punishing” those who get too far ahead has always happened.

Williams and their SEGA car with all the electronic trickery was nigh-on unbeatable, so they banned electronics and Benetton was suddenly on their heels.
When Mercedes engines charged ahead and beat the lot by using Romulan alloys, those were bent and Ferrari was back in business.
Then Ferrari dominated and the Bridgestone tyres were nerfed to nobble the Scuderia.
Red Bull was better than the rest at aerodynamics, so one after the other solution was banned, which definitely paid dividends.

What all those have in common is that the other teams had more or less ‘unlimited’ options. They could bring new engines, aero parts, tyre evolutions at every race.

Engine development options are progressively being reduced and due to the four engine rule, the manufacturers can at best bring three updated specs and due to the testing ban they have to do so risking penalties if the engine goes kaboom, like all but one Renault in Melbourne.

The rule changes were agreed upon years ago. Red Bull/Horner had no problems with said changes. RB dominated F1 during that time and Horner was an incredibly smug winner. Red Bull commercials were everywhere on television during the F1 season and SkyF1 actually produced dedicated programming to Red Bull’s success. The company and Horner basked in the attention.

For their 2014 PU, Merc separated the turbo and the compressor – not AT ALL a secret. It was widely reported as the secret to their success, as it allowed them to then concentrate almost solely on aero improvements, and they’ve done a masterful job with their aero package.

In a side issue that now acts as a “chickens coming home to roost situation, Horner/Red Bull, with their well-monied compatriots effectively blocked leveling the money distribution amongst the teams, with Horner acting as good corporate soldier commenting about how it was Red Bull’s “duty” to spend as much as they needed to keep their advantage over “lesser” teams; that given the opportunity, the teams whining about more even money distribution would do the same if the situation was reversed.

Unfortunately, Renault refused to take seriously Merc’s PU radical design changes. It also appears Horner did not demand 24/7 research into their primary competitor’s PU as soon as the design was made known.

Now, Horner and company are whining about stark disparity of “the engine” compared with that of Mercedes. In the real world Christian Horner would be summarily fired for his abject failure to demand overreaching changes to the Renault PU. Instead, in the cloistered, fantasy world of Formula One, Horner’s present puling and complaints are actually echoed by head honcho, Bernie Eccelstone!

1. Eccelstone needs to keep his trap shut as far as cosigning Horner is concerned and work to turn Mercedes’ present dominance into a positive by comparing the team with dominant teams past – even to the point of hailing their advantage as part a new “golden era” in F1 engine design advancement along with a burgeoning mythic F1 figure in Lewis Hamilton. 2. Horner needs to acknowledge his own complacency due to RB’s four Constructor and WDC Championships, acknowledge Mercs’s position, Ferrari’s progress, and Williams’ continued forward movement as signposts of what Red Bull must do to regain its just-ended glory. He can then use his competitors as examples of how, with a more eager attitude and forward-looking mindset, Red Bull will rededicate itself to being the best on the grid. Additionally, he might have to admit that Rd Bull may be, for the moment, sunk until the 2017 changes kick in.

Giving some thought to the recent events these two items appear to be “best for the sport” ways to go about dealing with F1’s on track current events. Rather than allowing the public and erstwhile media members like TJ13 and crew to continue to quite pointedly illustrate just how far removed F1 is from its fans, these changes are likely to bring about a sport/media/fan closeness by showing that the best of the best are human and are fallible, but like we are all asked to do in troubled times, F1 from top down is willing to put their collective nose to the grindstone and make the sport work.

The present spoiled rich kids whining and hand-wringing is doing the sport an injustice.

Kudos Judge for putting it together:-
1.’too aerodynamically dependent and sought to redress’…
2.Horner on Sauber’s Ferrari engine.
And the kicker…..
3.’They’re using last year’s wings’…..
4. ‘The difference is the engine’

The only ‘problem’ I can see the new rules have highlighted is that a customer team is never going to challenge the works team.

Unfortunately there are so few manufacturers that if one drops the ball their customers don’t really have anywhere else to turn.

I can’t see how this would work but it would seem one way to open things up would be to prevent an engine manufacturer also being a chassis manufacturer.

That could open things up – less reason for the engine builder to keep secrets to themselves and more chance to develop up to the level of other teams. Also harder to do what Merc have done and tightly integrate chassis and engine.

However, it would be hard to police and there is one very big obstacle that would pretty much prevent this happening – Ferrari.

How about the engine manufacturers come together to agree on a formula to get extra engine development tokens. For instance if the mandatory torque sensor says there is an x percentage difference than the respective engine builder gets 1 extra token for the following season. If the torque sensor says there is there is an x + 1 percentage difference than the respective engine builder gets 2 extra tokens for the following season, etc. Keep in mind that just using the torque sensor is not enough because things like fuel consumption and horsepower are also important to include in such formula.

Having said all that it seems that both Renault and Honda have severe software problems, as the main source of the drivebility problems, and those are a lot harder to put restrictions on (especially since engine builders are free to introduce software upgrades all year long so that shouldn’t require any extra help)

Mercedes ahead by an average ≥1.5 sec per lap. Not fastest on the straight. All they need to achieve is a 1/10th at the entrance and exit of most corners, and there you have their current performance advantage. In comparison, the others are not really doing a good job. Yes, Mercedes do have some very advanced technology, which was shown on a YouTube video that was quickly removed. But anybody else could have the same equipment if they were prepared to invest.

I believe the current should be left to run their natural course.
Mercedes should not be penalised simply because their engineers have done a better job than the rest.
If the genius of the energy drink mob has lost his mojo and their engine builder has resorted to providing snail power that is a problem they need to address internally.
Mercedes simply got it right.
As a Ferrari fan I know the current dominance of #F1 by Mercedes won’t last forever.
As Toto said “get your fucking heads down and work”

The main reason why I voted Yes is because the question did not include a time frame. If there was a time frame which for instance says that the rules should be changed for this season I would have voted No. If the time frame was for next season than my opinion would be dependent on the kind of changes that Red Bull wants. Since Red Bull have asked to hold Mercedes back my answer would probably still be No. I don’t believe in holding back your competitors but I do believe in giving the ones that lag behind something extra in order to catch up, but only when the difference is too big. This way the competitors still have to make the advancements themselves but it does bring the pack closer together. And with catch up I mean that Renault, Ferrari and Honda are given extra engine development tokens, according to a pre agreed formula, to allow them to catch up to Mercedes. For instance something like if the torque sensor says that you’re 5% behind the winner you get 2 extra tokens.